中国DOS联盟

I'm sorry. This is my first time visiting this forum. I wandered around the "New DOS Era" website a long time ago. I didn't notice the forum at that time. It seemed there was a guestbook. Now I went to "New DOS Era" again to look for a software, and then came to this forum. This is my first time to come here.

Originally, I wanted to contribute a little to the development of DOS. I really love DOS. But I'm only familiar with the use of DOS. For development, I'm really not up to the task. Even for programming under Windows, it's just so - so. Occasionally play. Initially learn programming with QB. Then use VB. Until now, also use VB to write small programs. Very lazy. Almost never learned other things. For the most familiar VB, at most dare to evaluate with "roughly understand".

Some time ago, try to return from Windows to DOS. Learned a little assembly and C. Therefore, although I'm a beginner in C, I'm too lazy to use TC. Unfortunately, I originally had a thin foundation. In the bookstore and library full of TC teaching materials, I can't find materials on DJGPP. Even on the Internet, it's difficult to find decent teaching materials. Only found a "Yun Feng" to translate an Allegro description at an unknown time.

I think most of the mature programmers have turned to non - DOS development platforms, for work, survival or something else... But many beginners like me, even if they have that enthusiasm, but because of lack of knowledge and insufficient experience, it's impossible to develop decent applications under DOS. Relying only on a small number of experts loyal to DOS, it's impossible to support the whole sky. But for the familiar Windows, there are too many people writing programs for it. Even a beginner like me can pretend to write a few decent small software to play with for classmates. But for DOS, there are many people using it, but the popularity of developing DOS software is insufficient. For writing Windows programs, we can find a large number of teaching materials. When having problems, find a large number of answers on the Internet. During the process of writing programs, there are a large number of other people's source codes for reference. But for DOS, the available materials are relatively too few. My classmates don't even know the existence of FreeDOS and so on. Maybe it's sad, but it's the fact.

I have a suggestion that may not be easy to implement, that is "to expand the large army of new DOS development starts from cultivating new DOS programmers" Hehe, a little misappropriating Deng Xiaoping's words. Hope to provide more materials for programming under DOS, starting from the most basic, so that friends who just start learning programming can understand. Don't always see only experts discussing DOS programming.

Thanks!

Your suggestion is indeed very good and is also the dream of all of us, but currently there are very few people in the programming section, and coupled with everyone being busy with studies, there is not enough time to collect and organize materials, which in turn causes beginners to not be able to get into the state here. So the programming section needs more people with knowledge and enthusiasm to join. Your joining the union is the future hope of CDU!

The building owner said very well, give a thumbs up!

My personal insights, not necessarily correct, I'll say them for everyone to criticize and correct.

To learn computers, one must learn programming; to learn programming, one must learn assembly. Those who deny this view are those who don't want to become experts.

There is also a saying that to become a computer expert (of course, referring to PC), one must be proficient in BIOS. We don't discuss whether BIOS is good or not, nor whether BIOS is outdated or not. I just want to say that BIOS is an industry standard. Without rules, there is no order. With standards, everything else can be talked about.

Well, let's get to the main point: To be proficient in BIOS, one must be proficient in DOS! Is there anyone who objects? Don't object first. Let's see how I explain the reason.

Why? The answer is: No reason, just because of historical reasons. In history, BIOS books and materials were sold together with DOS books and materials. This is too classic, no one can change this fact. If you don't learn BIOS, you can't be proficient in DOS. If you don't learn DOS, you can't access BIOS materials, and it can also be said that you can't be proficient in BIOS.

In a way, WINDOWS is nonsense, a deception. Is learning WINDOWS difficult? No. But learning it is basically useless for you to become a computer expert. That is to say, learning it is wasting your precious youth. You can completely learn LINUX, which is also much more useful than WINDOWS... So, I want to say that DOS and Linux should (can almost) be regarded as indispensable knowledge points. Mastering them, you will never be out of date.

The following is a quote from Budian on 2003-9-27 0:02:22:
The owner's statement is very good, give a thumbs up!

A little personal opinion of mine, not necessarily correct, let's put it forward for everyone's criticism and correction.

To learn computer, one must learn programming; to learn programming, one must learn assembly. Those who deny this view are those who don't want to become masters.

There is also a saying that to become a computer master (of course, referring to PC), one must be proficient in BIOS. We don't discuss whether BIOS is good or not, and we don't discuss whether BIOS is outdated or not. I just want to say that BIOS is an industrial standard. Without rules, there is no order. With standards, everything else can be talked about.

Alright, let's get to the main topic: To be proficient in BIOS, one must be proficient in DOS! Is there anyone who opposes? Don't oppose first. Let's see how I explain the reason.

Why? The answer is: No reason, just because of historical reasons. In history, BIOS books and materials were sold together with DOS books and materials. This is too classic, and no one can change this fact. If you don't learn BIOS, you can't be proficient in DOS. If you don't learn DOS, you can't access BIOS materials, and it can be said that you can't be proficient in BIOS.

In a way, WINDOWS is nonsense and fooling people. Is learning WINDOWS difficult? No. But learning it is basically useless for you to become a computer master. That is to say, learning it is wasting your precious youth. You can completely learn LINUX, which is also much more useful than WINDOWS. So, I want to say that DOS and Linux should (can almost) be regarded as indispensable knowledge points. Mastering them will never make you outdated.

What the above person said is great. In fact, BIOS firmware engineers are very scarce. Now it is really difficult to find an engineer who has a very good understanding of BIOS and can write well. The industry is digging people everywhere. Learning BIOS well, and then you also learn DOS well, because the two are inseparable. When you have learned both, the future must be limitless~ But to learn BIOS, the prerequisite is that you must have a deep understanding of ASM~ Sometimes, when seeing some articles criticizing the various drawbacks of ASM, I often feel that they must not understand computers enough to make such remarks. It's true that C can speed up the development speed and is easy to maintain, but relatively, it also causes the program to be large and waste resources. Although ASM is difficult to learn, the programs written with ASM are relatively smaller and fully utilize resources

In terms of operation alone, Windows is extremely simple. For software under Windows, except for more professional industry software, there isn't much worth learning. But it's precisely this simplicity that has attracted many people's attention.

If among ten thousand people who like computers, one hundred will become programmers, and among one hundred programmers, one will become an expert-level figure, then how many users does Windows have? How many users does DOS and Linux have? Without a large enough base of support, it's difficult for anyone or anything to make a mark. Just like those tragic heroes in history who are admired but couldn't achieve great霸业. Putting politics aside, the saying "Those who win the hearts of the people win the world" is absolutely correct.

I'm a novice, with no great skill in computer technology, but I also know that for DOS or Linux to have great development, there must be a large number of supporters. The current number of supporters is far from enough. Even if they are all of high quality, two fists are no match for four hands after all.

Windows 9X is an application based on DOS, but this application is also a development platform. On it, its functions are expanded through various software, and the various functions can cooperate conveniently with each other. Looking at DOS again, the operation in command line mode, although there are also a large number of excellent software, it always feels that they can't be closely integrated together. It's like a person's limbs that can cooperate with each other on one trunk. But what if there is no such trunk or the trunk itself is difficult to support the limbs? Developing a strong trunk based on DOS to integrate the limbs based on DOS? Then wouldn't it become another Windows? I'm confused.

What should DOS be like? Should it become another Windows or remain as it is? This question seems difficult to answer. But true wisdom doesn't belong to a small number of people, but to everyone. Only when there are more people supporting DOS will DOS have a clear development direction, develop in the direction that everyone hopes for, meet the needs of the majority, and then be able to compete with Windows and Linux and others on an equal footing. Such development requires a large number of users and also a large number of programmers. Only when there are users' needs will programmers write the programs that users need, and only when there are programs written by programmers will more users be attracted... Hehe, I look forward to becoming a DOS programmer, not just a user waiting for others to write programs.

I generally agree with most of Can Huan Feng Xue's views. However, in some aspects, I have my own different opinions.

What should be is what it is. Forcibly accelerating growth is of no avail. There is no need to worry at all about the problem of not having many DOS/Linux users. Even if unified under the Windows platform, it cannot guarantee that everyone is an expert. In our unit, a considerable proportion (about half) have a bachelor's degree or higher, but more than 95% of the users cannot handle routine Windows errors. The unit completely relies on a few skilled experts to handle these problems.

It is impossible for everyone to be an expert. No matter what system dominates, 99% are users at the idiot level.

The reason why Linux cannot be adopted by 99% of people is that it is currently only popular among experts. It cannot quickly make ordinary users adapt to it. However, things are changing, and Linux will eventually meet the needs of users at the idiot level. It is a natural process, and again, don't forcibly accelerate growth.

Look at whether Windows is stagnating now? It is standing still, while Linux is making great progress. Since DOS was abandoned by Microsoft, the pace of progress has not slowed down but has greatly accelerated. Don't think that DOS is just the command line; someone will eventually make a good graphical interface.

Good things in the world, even if there are few users, will not disappear. Because technology is in the hands of a few people, and these few people represent the technology in this field.

Yes, this is a natural process. Those who should come will eventually come, and those who shouldn't come, even if you drag them here forcefully, they won't stay.

In short, the number of people in the initial stage of technology is always small, but as technology progresses and develops, the number will become larger and larger. However, no matter when and where, the distribution ratio of those with relatively high levels and those with relatively low levels will not change.

We who are already here should just do our own things well. Technology will definitely develop rapidly. Don't expect those who are not capable to come in. They will come, but not now.

Good technology will not be eliminated. At most, it will be transferred to other technologies. For example, isn't Windows technology now grafted onto Linux? By the same token, DOS will not disappear; to make DOS disappear, there must first be something that can replace DOS, having all or most of DOS's advantages. If that is the case, then DOS naturally cannot be said to have disappeared.

Did I just say that Windows is good? Yes, I admit that Windows is good. Good things, you have to admit them even if you don't want to. But this is not absolute, but keeps changing. When you talk about its advantages, it is good; conversely, when you talk about its disadvantages, it is not good. This is true for any thing.

The following is a quote from Budian on 2003-9-27 15:56:59:
I agree with most of Can Huan Feng Xue's viewpoints. However, in some aspects, I have my own different opinions.

What should be is what it is. Forcibly accelerating growth is of no avail. There is no need to worry about the problem of the small number of DOS/LINUX users at all. Even if it is unified under the WINDOWS platform, it cannot guarantee that everyone is an expert. In our unit, the proportion of people with a bachelor's degree or above is quite large (about half), but more than 95% of the users cannot handle the routine errors of WINDOWS. The unit completely relies on a few skilled experts to handle these problems.

It is impossible for everyone to be an expert. No matter what system dominates, 99% are users at the idiot level.

The reason why LINUX cannot be adopted by 99% of people is that it is only popular among experts at present. It cannot make ordinary users adapt to it quickly. However, things are changing. LINUX will eventually meet the needs of users at the idiot level. It is a natural process, and again, forcibly accelerating growth is not feasible.

Has WINDOWS stopped progressing now? It is standing still, while LINUX is making great progress. Since DOS was abandoned by Microsoft, the pace of its progress has not slowed down but has accelerated greatly. Don't think that DOS is just a command line. Eventually, someone will make a good graphical interface.

Good things in the world, even if there are few users, will not disappear. Because technology is in the hands of a few people, and these few people represent the technology in this field.

Yes, this is a natural process. Those who should come will eventually come, and those who shouldn't come, even if you drag them here by force, they won't stay.

In short, the number of people in the initial stage of technology is always small, but as technology progresses and develops, the number will become larger and larger. However, no matter when and where, the distribution ratio of people with relatively high levels and relatively low levels will not change.

Those of us who are already here, just do our own things, that's enough. Technology will definitely develop rapidly. Don't expect those who are not capable to come in. They will come, but not now.

Good technology will not be eliminated. At most, it will be transferred to other technologies. For example, isn't WINDOWS technology already grafted into LINUX now? By the same token, DOS will not disappear; to make DOS disappear, there must first be something that can replace DOS and has all or most of the advantages of DOS. If that's the case, then DOS will not really disappear.

Did I just say that WINDOWS is good? Yes, I admit that WINDOWS is good. You have to admit good things even if you don't want to. But this is not absolute, but constantly changing. When you talk about its advantages, it is good; conversely, when you talk about its disadvantages, it is not good. This is true for any thing.

The development purpose of GUI is to be simple and easy to use. Every kind of OS will eventually move in this direction. I think it's not very good for DOS to develop GUI because DOS already has a huge and dominant GUI--WINDOWS 4.x. Is there any GUI under DOS that is better than WINDOWS 4.x? Looking at LINUX, its current situation is the same as that of DOS + WIN 3.x at the beginning. Given time, X-WINDOWS will be the same as WIN 4.x, then LINUX will be reduced to the same fate as DOS....

The brother upstairs has a reasonable point. But I also have some slightly different views.

WINDOWS is indeed a de facto industrial standard GUI, but don't forget that it is privately copyrighted and the source code is not allowed to be seen.

For some of us (even most of us), without the source code means nothing, just like having nothing.

In this way, the GUI of DOS is still necessary to be developed. No one knows when it will be completed, but it will come sooner or later. For example, porting X WINDOW is one way. Of course, the way to be compatible with WINDOWS is another way. There is also a four-in-one operating system of LINUX/DOS/WINDOWS/X-WINDOW, which has appeared and is called E/OS LX. Here is its news:
http://www.linuxeden.com/news/?newsid=4382

Some problems may not be easy to do in our eyes, but may be relatively easy in the eyes of some experts.

E/OS LX 0.20 is available for download on my website (I think it was added last year), but it's all in Spanish and hard to understand, and the compatibility...

X-Window actually has a DOS version, but it seems relatively complicated to set up, so it hasn't been successfully run yet.

In addition, I would like to add one more point.

Although WINDOWS was originally built on DOS, it later developed independently into a new operating system. This is a kind of split.

The situation with LINUX is quite different. X WINDOW has always been closely integrated with LINUX and complements each other. No matter how many years or months pass, the command line of LINUX will not disappear. What's more, there is already a GUI integrated into the LINUX kernel, completely independent of X-WINDOW.

The command line is not bad, but it is suitable for skilled operators. When solving system failures, the command line is often needed. This is just like when WINDOWS has problems, you need to start from BIOS and DOS to solve the problem.

So, the command line will never disappear. Experts need it, and experts won't let it disappear.

GUI and the command line each have their own user groups. Both need to develop forward. Neither can replace the other.

Then what is the DOS version of X-Window? Is it a GUI under DOS or an OS?

If someone implements X-WINDOW ported to DOS, then this X-WINDOW will be an application under DOS, just like WINDOWS 3.1.

In addition, I think that even if another method is used to implement it, it should not follow the example of WIN ME or WIN2000. It should be able to boot from DOS like win 3.1. That is to say, don't implement another operating system, just implement a graphical interface.

WIN98 can actually boot to DOS first and then enter WINDOWS through the WIN command. This is still conceptually within the scope of WIN3.1. So, WIN98 is worthy of imitation. WIN ME is completely worthless.
What a hassle it is to have problems on machines after WIN ME! If you use DOS, this DOS is not very compatible with the operating system. If you don't use DOS, the operating system itself doesn't have suitable tools, and even FDISK is no longer provided. Microsoft's great failure will start from here. Originally, Microsoft's DOS had an inherent advantage, and LINUX didn't have the functions of DOS. However, the stupid Microsoft gave up DOS and developed another operating system independently. This operating system is essentially no stronger than LINUX at all. You see: When LINUX has a problem (such as hardware compatibility) and needs to use BIOS, pure LINUX experts are powerless. They must also be proficient in BIOS. Let's look at WINDOWS 2000 again. The situation is exactly the same. When there is a problem, the solutions of DOS / BIOS are needed, but 2000 doesn't cooperate with this. This situation is almost the same as that of LINUX.

Then look at WIN98, it's different. DOS runs smoothly under 98. The problems of 98 can be solved with real-mode DOS, and there are plenty of tools.

So finally, add that Linux can easily surpass Win2000, XP, etc., but it's very difficult to surpass WIN98. Here we see the unique advantage of WIN98: it connects the past and the future - the previous DOS is basically compatible, and the subsequent WINDOWS applications such as MS OFFICE are also compatible. So it's not strange that WIN98 is the operating system with an absolute majority of users. About 85-90% of users use WIN98.

The DOS version of X-WIN is actually made to enhance the power of UNIX, not to enhance DOS, and its motivation is impure.

But the views of the original poster are all very new. Although I don't agree, your joining is welcome.

As for the materials of DJGPP, I also have the same feeling, so I made this website
http://home.fei-cg.com/lemonhall/

In fact, for the materials of DJGPP itself, you don't need to care too much, because you can completely refer to the materials of LINUX.

PERL5.6 also runs very well in the DJGPP environment, and there are a lot of books.

If you are interested in working on the Chinese localization of DJGPP, post a reply or write to me.

lemonhall@vip.sina.com

The DOS version of X-WIN is actually made to enhance the power of UNIX, not to enhance DOS, and its motivation is impure.

----------------------------

Brother Lou is joking.

It is people who love DOS that port X WINDOW to DOS, not the developers of X WINDOW who port it to DOS. The so-called "to enhance the power of UNIX, impure motivation" is completely baseless.